GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
November 9, 2011
Robinson Hall B113, 3:02 – 4:28 p.m.
Senators Present: Ernest Barreto, Sheryl Beach, Jim Bennett, Alok Berry, Doris
Bitler, John Cantiello, Rick Coffinberger, Arie Croitoru, Charlene Douglas,
Cody Edwards, John Farina, Jorge Haddock, Susan Hirsch, Mark Houck, Dimitrios
Ioannou, Kathryn Jacobsen, Dan Joyce, David Kuebrich, Jerry Mayer, Linda
Monson, Janette Muir, Star Muir, Elavie Ndura, James Olds, Peter Pober, Earle
Reybold, Pierre Rodgers, Jim Sanford, Joe Scimecca, Suzanne Scott, Suzanne
Slayden, Thomas Speller, Peter Stearns, June Tangney, Susan Trencher, Halaevalu
Vakalahi, Phil Wiest, John Zenelis, Stanley Zoltek.
Senators Absent: Jack Censer, Vikas Chandhoke, Lloyd Cohen, Maggie Daniels, Yvonne
Demory, Robert Dudley, Kelly Dunne, Daniel Garrison, Mark Ginsberg, Lloyd
Griffiths, Margret Hjalmarson, Bruce Johnsen, Howard Kurtz, Ning Li, Alan
Merten, Paula Petrik, Daniel Polsby, William Reeder, Edward Rhodes, Lesley
Smith, Ray Sommer, Eva Thorp, Shirley Travis, Iosif Vaisman.
Visitors Present: Rick Davis, Associate Provost for Undergraduate
Education/Associate Dean, CPVA; Pat Donini, Employee Relations Director/Deputy
Director, Human Resources; Kim Eby, Associate Provost, Faculty Development and
Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Esther Elstun, Professor Emerita,
Modern and Classical Languages; Josh
Eyler, Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Dolores
Gomez-Roman, University Ombudsman; Robert
Johnson, Associate Professor of Finance,
School of Management/Chair, Academic Initiatives Committee; Linda Harber,
Associate Vice President, Human Resources and Payroll; Thomas Hennessey,
University Chief of Staff; Corey Jackson, Director, Office of Equity and Diversity
Services; Reuben Jones, Senior Admin. Reporter, Connect2Mason.com; Susan
Jones, Associate Provost and University Registrar, Registrar's Office; Gabe Levine, Student Government Liaison; Tim Murphy, Director, Classroom and Lab
Technologies, DOIT; ; Della Patrick, Staff Senate Liaison; Sharon
Pitt, Executive Director, DOIT; Claudia Rector, Assistant Provost for Academic
Affairs; Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs/Vice
President, Enrollment Services; Bethany Usher, Director, Students as
Scholars/Associate Director, Center for Teaching Excellence; Dr. Ernst
Volgenau, Rector, George Mason University; Brian Walther, Associate University
Counsel..
I.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to
order at 3:02 p.m.
II.
Approval of the Minutes of October 5, 2011:
The
minutes were approved as distributed.
III.
Announcements
Chair Pober welcomed
everyone to the meeting and
introduced Rector Ernst Volgenau. Rector Volgenau mentioned
he had “just returned from a visit to UCLA, his alma mater,” from which
he received a PhD in Engineering. “He described the UCLA campus and student
body, noting the Dean of the Engineering School described the typical student
in the top 3-4% of high school class, with perfect SAT scores in Math. He
emphasized that UCLA has very high entrance requirements, a medical
school, as well as tremendous grant proposals and alumni systems. He noted
that, during the visit, President Merten suggested UCLA, among other
universities such as UVA and the University of Michigan, as models for George
Mason to emulate.
Rector
Volgenau reported on the Presidential Search. Initially, he said, we planned to
appoint eight Visitors to the Presidential Search Committee. As the new appointees to the BOV also wanted to
be involved in the selection process, he decided to allow any Visitor who
wished to serve on the Presidential Search Committee to join; eleven Visitors
serve on the committee. So far, he reports, the meetings have been reasonably
collegial and instructive.
One Senator,
having just attended an assembly on the South Plaza organized by students offered
two concerns for the Rector’s consideration:
(1). Students do not feel they are very well
represented in the Presidential Search Process. They also complained that
involvement in the process began at a very late stage.
(2). The GMU Administration is not as diverse as
the student body. The student body is very
proud of its diversity.
Rector
Volgenau observed that “the student representatives speak out; they have not
been quiet.” He acknowledged a lot of
people wanted to be on the Committee. He
reported that Jean Greenwood (of the Presidential Search Firm) defines 18
members as normal size of a search committee:”our committee has 23 or 24
members.” Rector Volgenau says there
have been a lot of community meetings to gain input on the criteria for
President. Chief of Staff Tom Hennessey
added that the Greenwood Firm has received more feedback on the Presidential
Search Process than ever before.
Several
Senators also expressed their concerns about the Presidential Search Process,
which include the possibility faculty could be presented with a sole finalist,
losing the opportunity to provide feedback about a group of finalists. Some faculty view candidates who are
unwilling to stand in an open forum to answer faculty questions as a
disqualifier for the position.
Rector
Volgenau replied that “the search committee members signed confidentiality
agreements, and added that there are good candidates who will not consider
position if their identities are disclosed.
The process is underway to examine applicants’ records; “we have not yet
interviewed people that will not happen for a while.” Some Visitors are concerned that the
Presidential Search Committee will inhibit the role of the BOV which selects
candidates. The Rector agreed that it is
conceivable that the BOV could consider other candidates; he cannot “forecast
what will happen.” He agreed to make
sure that the Presidential Search Committee considers the Faculty Senate
Resolution as well.
A
Senator noted that there was a 100% rise in SAT applicant scores; the incoming
class in the School of Nursing is much stronger. Question: What changes do you see to reflect
this?
Rector
Volgenau replied that enrollment is growing very slowly as state support has
declined. Every in-state student loses
money, out-of-state students bring in more money than they cost. With a growing number of candidates and fixed
enrollment, standards, he said, will go up no matter what we do. He is wary of the BOV becoming deeply
involved in GMU administration and rely on the President and his team to do
their jobs.
A
Senator noted that she “has a lot of respect for Rector Volgenau and
appreciates his graciousness. The Senator expressed concern that candidates would
be worried about their reputations (in terms of a stated rationale for search
privacy). The Senator stated that,”in
academia the way you raise your salary is to get a better offer and feels reasoning
not applicable in an academic setting.” The
Senator pointed to the fact that President Merten did try to get another
position at another university while at Mason.
“We are a public university; we (need) transparency.”
Rector
Volgenau said he respected the comment but disagreed. Recalling his involvement with searches in
the business sector, he said they are confidential. “When you make an offer, sometimes there are
counter-offers; sooner or later will become public later in process than in
academe.”
Another Senator mentioned the Faculty Handbook section related to
administrative searches. Section 1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the
Selection of Certain Members of the GMU Administration states, “The Board
of Visitors provides for participation on presidential search committees by
faculty who are elected by the General Faculty.
The search and selection process must include opportunities for the
General Faculty to meet with candidates who are finalists for the presidency.”
Rector Volgenau responded he “will be sure to read the Faculty Handbook and
will do his best to adhere to it; we did approve it”.
Dean
Jorge Haddock, School of Management noted
School of Management's recent accomplishments and ongoing projects are included
in Attachment A.
A
Senator asked Dean Haddock to “Give me three reasons why your programs are so
good.”
Dean
Haddock: -1- “The quality of faculty is second to none...
faculty are very productive. There is a
huge demand (among students) for business schools.”
-2-
Among students we get very good feedback, (including) our location.
-3-
“SOM is very entrepreneurial; he took the job as dean because he can have great
flexibility. We continue to build on our reputation.”
Director
Jim Olds, Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study focused on three
main points.
-1-
“We are an academic unit – a strange academic unit. Our faculty and departments all house faculty
from other departments: COS, CHSS, CEHD,
and now from CHHS. All faculty under one
roof are collaborative; they teach each others' students independent of
boundaries of their disciplines and are full voting members of the Krasnow
faculty. Teaching some very fine MA, PhD
programs, including Neuroscience programs.
We are getting a lot of grant money.
Our publications appear in Science and Nature.”
-2-”
We have a fabulous new wet lab space in Fairfax, provides opportunities for
students; jammed with undergraduate students on the weekend. …we are really diving into STEM education.”
-3-”
We are very cognizant that Science Enterprise is global. No international boundaries around research
design to better all mankind.” New
program with Humboldt University in Berlin “Soft Skills” explains how to write
grants among different countries. Pilot
program to begin in Berlin; to train our trainees in both sets of skills to
work internationally.
IV. New Business -
Committee Reports
A. Senate Standing Committees
Executive Committee – Peter Pober, Chair
On
behalf of the Executive Committee, Chair Pober moves the following resolution
be adopted by the Faculty Senate. Does
anyone wish to discuss the resolution?
Resolution
on the Presidential Search Process – Executive Committee
November
2011
Whereas, one criterion stated by the
Faculty Senate for inclusion in a job vacancy announcement for university
president was a “proven commitment to transparency throughout the university in
all aspects of its operations,” and
Whereas, a second criterion stated by
the Faculty Senate for inclusion in a job vacancy announcement for university president
was a “proven commitment to shared governance,” and
Whereas, the Presidential Search Committee Checklist1 of the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP), the primary organization that
supports shared governance between faculty and administrators, states, “…in
order to attract the best candidates, the search process may involve some
measure of confidentiality, especially during the early phases….However, to
ensure a successful search, the nominees who are recommended to the board should
visit campus and be interviewed by the faculty and possibly other constituent
groups,” and
Whereas, the same document also
states, “The second stage of the interview process involves campus visits where
the candidate will meet with different constituencies, particularly faculty and
students. These open visits are crucial
in the success of the search process because they permit members of the campus
community to participate in providing impressions as well as to contribute to
the candidate’s understanding of the culture of the institution,” and
Whereas, at forums regarding the presidential search
process, numerous faculty expressed opinions in favor of candidates’ meeting
with faculty in open forums and expressed opinions against hiring a candidate
without such meetings,
Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate supports a search process that includes multiple
final candidates’ participation in open meetings with faculty prior to
selection of the next president and strongly disapproves a search process that
does not include such meetings, and
Be it further resolved that the
position of the Faculty Senate is that a candidate who does not meet with
faculty in an open meeting as part of the search process fails to demonstrate
proven commitment to transparency throughout the university in all aspects of
its operations, and
Be it further resolved that the
position of the Faculty Senate is that a candidate who does
not meet with faculty in an open meeting
as part of the search process fails to demonstrate a commitment to shared
governance as identified by the AAUP, and
Be it further resolved that this
resolution be transmitted to the chair and all members of the Presidential
Search Committee, and
Be it further resolved that multiple
final candidates for the presidency of George Mason University be made aware of
this resolution during the search process
1http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/governance/postart.htm
Discussion:
A
Senator suggested the inclusion of a statement from the Faculty Handbook which
clearly suggests the general faculty must meet with candidate finalists, to be
inserted as the third “whereas” By a vote of 31 in favor, 3 opposed, the inclusion of
an amendment was approved.
A
motion was made and seconded to place the following text as the third whereas:
“Whereas,
the GMU Faculty Handbook Section 1.2.5 Faculty Participation in the
Selection of Certain Members of the Central Administration, specifies
that “…The search and selection process
must include opportunities for the General Faculty to meet with candidates who
are finalists for the presidency,” and
A
Senator spoke in favor of the amendment, as “positive...it makes sense, and
adds institutional might.” Another
Senator spoke against the inclusion of the amendment: “...The BOV can change the Faculty Handbook
by fiat...the resolution is good enough and strong enough as it is. Rector Volgenau is aware of it.” In response, a third Senator remarked: “If you are afraid they will change (it),
what have you lost? If we don't stand up
for the Faculty Handbook it is not worth anything.”
A Senator suggested the amendment appear as
the first whereas. An amendment to the
amendment was made to move the amendment from third whereas to first whereas. A Senator “called the question.” The amendment to move the amendment from third
whereas to first whereas was approved. A motion was made and seconded to vote
on the resolution as amended. Paper
ballots were distributed. 31 votes in
favor, 2 votes opposed, the amended resolution was approved.
Academic Policies – Janette Muir, Chair
We
have met with Brenda Quaye, the new director of the Office of Academic Integrity about changes to the Honor Code. They are interested in having faculty input
to process...They are also looking for students to serve on the Honor
Committee.
Budget & Resources – June Tangney, Chair
We are conducting a survey of chairs to
find out whether faculty are notified of opportunities to teach over the summer
and whether they could honor all full
time faculty requests to teach. So far
we have received responses from 30 of 57 administrators surveyed (53% response rate). Of those returned, 27 (90%) valid, 3 (10%)
invalid, had just assumed chair. Of the 27
valid responses, 22 (81%) notified faculty
and could honor all full time faculty requests to teach one course for summer
2011. 5 (19%) said they could not honor
all full-time faculty requests to teach one course for summer 2011. The bottom line: There is more of a problem than we
thought. Senator Tangney
distributed “Results of Summer Teaching Survey 11/9/11” (see Attachment B). “A tip of
the iceberg” problem, e.g., faculty did not ask/tell because too many want to
ask. We
have an issues we need to address as a faculty. Please send comments or concerns to June
Tangney [email protected] and the Budget and Resources Committee.
Faculty Matters – Jim Sanford
The
Faculty Evaluation of Administrators survey will be distributed next week. We are working on faculty wishing to take
courses enrollment application process and looking at maternity/paternity
leave.
Nominations –
no report.
Organization & Operations – Star Muir, Chair
The
Executive Committee agreed to forward requests received for Faculty Handbook
revisions directly to the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee through
Organization and Operations. They may
also be sent to other recipients as needed.
B. Other Committees
Academic Initiatives Committee Report
The
Faculty Senate voted unanimously to accept the report. See ATTACHMENT C
V. Other New
Business
Consensual Relationships Policy – Corey Jackson, Director,
Equity and Diversity Services and Brian Walther, Senior Associate University
Counsel presented the
proposed policy. With input from the
Faculty Senate Executive Committee, revisions were incorporated, we looked at
it several times. Discussion also
included the Faculty Matters Committee.
We ask for the endorsement of the Faculty Senate.
Discussion:
A
Senator questioned “Why do we need this policy?”
Brian
Walther: This has come up at other
universities. In an abuse of power
situation, faculty member/employees obligated to come forward to address it;
necessary to make stronger statements; requires disclosure more than the Sexual
Harassment Policy.
Chair
Pober added that the Executive Committee feels the proposed policy is
significantly improved.
A
Senator inquired if something happened,
and the first order of report processes it, are procedures in place to deal
with faculty issues or does it go to Human Resources? Concerned about protection of faculty if not
adjudicated, if process not well-defined.
Brian
Walther: It is a matter for
supervisor/chairs, then goes to dean, then to Office of Equity and Diversity
Services. It is not very different from
other universities in Virginia.
Corey
Jackson: Not to circumvent policies in
place, but to supplement them. Some
policies harsher, some are looser, need to get policies in line (references
Department of Education/Civil Rights).
Another
Senator asked: “We are sacrificing
privacy by asking faculty to report this to unit chair and have information
move up the chain?”
Corey
Jackson: Yes, but privacy is sacrificed
when relationships go bad. There has
been an increase in these kinds of cases; students report them after the fact.
A
motion was made and seconded to endorse the policy. The motion was approved with one negative
vote. See ATTACHMENT
D for the policy text.
Korea Initiative Update:
Professor Bob Johnston, Chair of the Academic
Initiatives Committee, announced that the committee has just received the first
draft of the consolidated report about Korea.
The committee will perform due diligence on three items: academic, faculty, and financial. We have requested additional information and
expect to give a revised report and recommendation to this group at the
December meeting.
VI.
Remarks for the Good of the General Faculty
As Chair Pober will be away
in December, Chair pro Tem Suzanne Slayden will chair the next Faculty Faculty Senate meeting on December 7th.
Congratulations to Senator
Janette Muir, who will become the new Associate Provost for Undergraduate
Education. As she moves to the gallery,
there will be an election in CHSS to fill her Senate seat and the Nominations
Committee will move to replace her as Faculty Representative to the APDUC
Committee of the BOV.
Our Forensics Team finished
second at last weekend’s LE Norton Invitational. We had the most harrowing return trip, the
bus driver died. If you have our
students in your classes, I beg your
indulgence in this situation.
The Presidential Search
Process continued:
It is important to
acknowledge a number of administrators
have supported open process in the Presidential Search Among other schools, UVA presented one candidate (finalist), a similar
move took place somewhere else During
the search for President Merten (1996), four candidates were brought in and
their names released. Not the same
search firm, but part of it. What happens if they simply ignore us? To appeal, we would have to go above the BOV
to the Attorney General.
In speaking for the other
side, a Senator noted the President and
Provost are not tenured in positions versus having tenure as professors. A different set of circumstances, really torn
about this, we want to have the best person we can. Other
Senators' responses included: Isn't
transparency the goal? In all
aspects? While not tenured in position,
they have golden parachutes, and are well-taken care of. Faculty want to have candidates who really
want to do good.
The Presidential Search
Committee meets once a month, important to consider this issue now. The resolution will be sent immediately to
Rector Volgenau, Vice Rector Clemente, Visitor Hammel and the rest of the Search
Committee. Do we know what the time
frame will be? In developing the
following motion, a November 15th
deadline was replaced by “no later than two weeks prior to the selection of the
final candidates.”
“The Faculty Senate of GMU requests the Presidential Search
Committee to determine whether they will comply with the request of the
resolution or not no later than two weeks prior to the selection of the final
candidates and report back to the Faculty Senate.”
The motion was
approved.
Gabe Levine, Student Government Liaison, invited faculty to participate in Goal
2011 which takes place on Friday, and appreciates your involvement.
VII. Adjournment : The meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Earle Reybold
Secretary
ATTACHMENT
A
Dean
Jorge Haddock’s Remarks to the Faculty Senate
Good
afternoon. Thank you so very much for
this opportunity to share some of the many accomplishments and ongoing projects
we have happening at the School of Management.
In today’s economy, businesses and business schools are constantly
talking about innovation in an effort to create better business practices, find
new and exciting ways to promote programs, and enhance learning. History has shown us that to thrive – or in
some instances, survive, an organization must innovate. Over the course of the past year, I believe
we have made innovative strides at the School of Management, and I’m very proud
of our recent accomplishments and ongoing projects.
·
Just last month, in US News and World
Report, we improved in our rankings:
Among Undergraduate Business Education Programs: George Mason School of Management ranked #81
(up from #88 last year). Among Best
Part-Time MBA Programs, George Mason School of Management ranked #59. He
added “There are over 1400 business programs in the US, we are very proud of
this.”
·
Ranked #86 among North American business schools in
the University of Texas at Dallas' Business Schools Research Ranking ™ for
research contributions to top business journals.
·
Ranked top 50 in Brigham Young University's Accounting
Research Rankings.
·
Faculty received 7 grants for research studies AY
2011-11. He added “As Business School
faculty are not required to bring in grants, this is both unusual and unique.”
I
have some updates to share with you regarding projects we have mentioned in the
past:
·
In today’s fast-paced society, many successful and
active business leaders are looking to advance their careers even further, but
need the flexibility to make it happen.
In response to this growing need, Mason’s School of Management has
expanded its Executive MBA programs to offer an online Global EMBA and National
Defense EMBA. Classes for the online
Executive MBA will begin in January.
·
In addition, I’m happy to announce that our MS in
Management of Secure Information Systems (or cyber security program) is
launching in January 2012. It is a
cross-disciplinary program drawing on the expertise of faculty members within
the School of Management, School of Public Policy, and Volgenau School of
Engineering. The program provides students with the management skills they need
while addressing the specific technology and policy challenges of modern
computerized information systems.
·
The first students to complete our MS in Real Estate
Development Program graduated this May and we've built a strong leadership
group with the Real Estate Council comprised of executives from regional real
estate companies, associations, and foundations.
·
When I last spoke to you, we announced that we
established the Center for Global Business Innovation and Transformation. I am happy to report that we recently hired a
new director for the center, Robert Grosse. Robert is formerly the dean of the
EGADE graduate business school at Monterrey Tec in Mexico, internationally
ranked as one of the top business schools in the world. In addition, Hun Lee, associate professor of management in
the School of Management has been named
assistant director.
We
also have a number of initiatives that are underway.
·
We created the
Investor Protection and Corporate Fraud Research Center and have named Keith Jones,
associate professor of accounting at the School of
Management as the center director.
·
We established
The Women in Business Affinity, which is
a new initiative that provides a platform of engagement for our current
business school students, alumni, and businesswomen from a variety of industries. This series aims to promote the excellence in and achievements of School of Management alumnae and the business community and to enhance the
experience for our female students within business programs.
These are just a few of the many ongoing
projects and accomplishments we are happy to share with the Faculty Senate, but
does not encompass all that we are doing at the School of Management. I look forward to working with you as we
continue to pursue new programs and initiatives. We are making great strides in accomplishing
our many goals, including our goal of becoming a top 50 ranked business school
in the US and becoming a premiere destination worldwide for Executive Education
programs. Thank you all for your time today and I invite you to
ask any questions you might have.
ATTACHMENT B
Results of Summer
Teaching Survey
11/9/11
Total surveys
emailed: 57
Total surveys
returned: 30 (53%)
Of those
returned: 27 (90%) valid; 3 (10%) invalid (e.g., had just assumed
chair)
Of the 27 valid responses:
22 (81%) Notified all full-time faculty of the
opportunity to teach a course for summer 2011
But there were a few
qualifications:
·
Yes.
Of the courses we feel are needed and scheduled for summer, all faculty are
notified of the schedule roster.
·
Yes,
except one class was canceled
due to low enrollment.
·
No. My tenure -track faculty are research active
and use the summer to do research or write proposals. They have no time or inclination to teach. I would hope that that is the case for most
of the tenure/tenure-track faculty in the university. Among the term faculty
only one of the faculty may have wanted to teach, but they understand that the
summer semester operated on a different financial model. In practice we only use adjuncts in the
summer and this actually works well.
22 (81%) Were
able to honor all full-time faculty
requests for at least one course for summer 2011
But
there were a few qualifications:
·
Yes.
The faculty who are qualified and typically teach those courses during the year
are those who are offered the opportunity to teach them in the summer. If that faculty is not interested or is
unavailable I offer the teaching opportunity to other faculty and if they are
not interested or available we field the course using a qualified adjunct.
·
No
requests. At most one faculty may have wanted to teach but didn't even make any
request.
5 (19%) Were unable to honor all full-time faculty
requests for at least one course for summer 2011
Comments:
·
Faculty
are aware of the teaching rotation and agree that with limited resources this
is the fair way to address this situation. Two full time faculty and one
adjunct were able to teach last summer. The program is strongly encouraged by
the administration (Provost and College) to use adjunct faculty whenever
possible.
·
One
full-time faculty was able to teach last summer and one this summer, but it
required the design of a specialized, community outreach program to gain
support.
Those who were unable to honor
requests were asked:
How many faculty
requests were not fulfilled, and how did you go about deciding who did and did
not receive the requested teaching assignment?
·
We
discourage senior faculty from teaching over the Summer so we will have enough
instructional funds to cover the costs for our junior faculty. Due to
limited Summer instructional funds we often encourage graduate assistants and
adjunct faculty to teach Summer classes because we can pay them less
money. Even with these guidelines, we still were not able to provide
Summer teaching to three or four faculty who wanted to teach. We did not
provide Summer teaching to any faculty who has other university-related sources
of Summer funding, through grants, contracts, stipends, summer camps, or other
activities, so we would have enough instructional funds to cover the Summer
teaching requests of faculty who had no other sources of Mason income for the
Summer.
·
We
only honor 1-2 of lower salaried fac because of budget and also our senior fac
we defer on because of their high salaries would break the budget.
·
Priority
was given to instructional faculty when assigning summer courses. All requests
from instructional faculty were fulfilled.
However, one professor with a relatively high salary (> $120K) who
had requested a summer course was given the option of teaching a different
course from the one requested (which was unlikely to receive a sufficiently
high enrollment). However, he declined the alternative course assignment.
How much additional
funding would you have needed to fulfill the requirements of the Faculty
Handbook vis-à-vis summer teaching salary?
·
An
additional $100K in our Summer instructional budget would help us meet the full
demand for Summer teaching.
·
$30k
·
$34,256
additional funding needed. The summer 2011 budget was $16,447
·
It's
difficult to estimate this because most faculty don't view the handbook
requirement as something likely to be honored. Currently, there are two full
professors who would like to teach a course each summer but are typically not
assigned a course because the Dean's office has specified that the department
needs to come out "in the black" with regard to the summer
budget. Both professors make more than
$120K for the AY. I estimate that at least 2 or 3 other faculty members would
submit summer course requests if they thought that their request would be
fulfilled. But most faculty in my department are not willing to teach a summer
course different from the one they typically teach during the AY. The faculty
handbook does not guarantee that full-time faculty are entitled to teach a
course of their own choice during the summer. Since my department's faculty are
not interested in teaching a course if it is not of their own choice, I would
estimate that no additional funding is needed if faculty can be assigned to courses
that are not their first choice.
Has any alternative
support been suggested as a substitute for the 10% (e.g., administrative
stipend, grant support). Please specify.
·
Yes,
we encourage our faculty to apply for Summer funding from the University and
from external funding sources.
·
A
higher percentage of our faculty have summer grant funding. Those that don't are still encouraged to work
on research and publishing. We strongly
discourage our tenured and tenure-line faculty from teaching in the summer. I
believe that only one such faculty has taught a summer course in the past 10
years.
·
In
the event that we were to come up short, we suggested that any course above one
be paid at matrix, but our request was denied because it would not pass the current
faculty senate regulations.
·
BUT note that labs in natural science are NOT paid
at 10% (as they once were). So lab instructors get only 6.7% I believe.
·
I
also am able to pay faculty 10% for teaching a laboratory if they coordinate
the labs during the summer. If not, they
get 6.7%. All faculty are able to teach
as much as they want to during the summer, including two courses at 10%.
·
The
College has not provided budget for full-time faculty to teach in the summer
for many years, long before I became Chair. Our college handles the summer
differently than the fall and spring, and it requires a little more
justification and oversight from central administration.
ATTACHMENT C
19 October 2011
Re: Spring Semester 2011 Report to the George Mason University Faculty Senate by the Academic Initiatives Committee
Committee Membership: Elizabeth
Sook Chong, CHHS, Wayne Froman, CHSS, Tom Kiley, COS, Terry Zawacki, CHSS, and
Thomas Speller (Chair), VSE
The
Senate Academic Initiatives Committee met four times during the spring
semester. Below is a summary of the
activities at these meetings:
Date: 7 February 2011
Attending: Elizabeth
Chong, Tom Kiley, Thomas Speller, David
Wilsford, and Terry Zawacki (Faculty Committee Members)
Agenda
Item: Discussion of the committee report to the
faculty senate for the fall semester 2010.
Date: 24 February 2011
Attending: Elizabeth
Chong, Tom Kiley, Thomas Speller, David Wilsford, and Terry Zawacki (Faculty
Committee Members)
Agenda
Item: Discussion of a revision to the committee
charge that was submitted as an item of business for the 2 March 2011 faculty
senate meeting.
Date:
4 April 2011
Attending:
Thomas Speller and Terry Zawacki (Faculty Committee Members) Anne
Schiller, (Associate Provost for International Projects) and Madelyn Ross,
(Director of China Programs)
Agenda
Item: Received a report (word and power point documents
attached) from Madelyn Ross regarding the China 1+2+1 program. In a series of follow up questions addressing
program pricing, majors available, faculty involvement in program decision
making, why this is not a two way program, possible changes, and program cash
flows were answered by Ms. Ross.
Date: 14 April 2011
Attending:
Elizabeth Chong, Wayne Froman,
and Thomas Speller (Faculty Committee Members) Anne Schiller, (Associate
Provost for International Projects) and Min Park (Faculty Advisor for Korea
Programs)
Agenda
Item: Min Park provided power point
presentation (copy attached) regarding the University’s global initiatives in
Korea. Professor Park’s presentation
included both ongoing initiatives as well as the possible George Mason
University Songdo Branch Campus. For the
possible Songdo Campus, a market survey has been conducted and copy is to be
made available to the committee.
Other—Moscow State
University Program: At the 18 October 2010 meeting of
the committee a request was made for information regarding the status of the
Moscow State University program at George Mason including enrollments and
student progress. The committee did not
receive a response to this request.
However, the syllabi for eight courses that are part of the program were
sent to the committee on 1 June 2011.
Attachments
(3)
Mason_Global_Office_Korea_Program_Report_to_AIC_4-14-11.pptx
China 121 OVERVIEW Report to AIC 4-04-11.docx
China Initatives to the AIC 4-04-11.pptx
ATTACHMENT D
CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS
I. SCOPE
This policy applies to all
faculty, staff and students of George Mason University.
II. POLICY STATEMENT
Sexual or romantic relationships
between employees and students have the effect of undermining the atmosphere of
trust on which the educational process depends.
Positions of authority inherently carry the element of power in their
relationships with Students. It is
imperative that those in authority neither abuse, nor appear to abuse, this
power entrusted to them. The respect and
trust accorded an employee by a student, as well as the power exercised in
giving praise or blame, grades, recommendations for further student and /or
future employment, can greatly diminish should sexual or romantic activity be
included in the relationship. Integrity
can be compromised when employees evaluate the work or academic performance of
students with whom they have a sexual or romantic relationship.
An employee who has a
professional power relationship over a student must avoid any sexual or
romantic relationships with the student.
If an employee becomes involved in a sexual or romantic relationship
with a student, or has had a past relationship with the student, the employee
must immediately notify his or her supervisor.
No employee shall exercise academic responsibility (instructional,
evaluative or supervisory) for any student with whom the
employee has or has had a sexual or romantic relationship.
Employees
are responsible for complying with this policy regardless of who initiates the
relationship. This policy applies regardless of whether both the employee and
the student consent to the relationship, and whether the
relationship is between individuals of the same sex or of the opposite sex.
Employees
must be aware that sexual relationships with students have the potential for
other adverse consequences, including the filing of a complaint alleging sexual
harassment and/or retaliation under University Policy 1202 – Sexual
Harassment. An employee who enters into
a sexual relationship with a student where a professional power relationship
exists must realize that if a charge of sexual harassment is subsequently
lodged, a claim of mutual consent in the relationship may not be a sufficient
defense.
III. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this policy only:
a. "Employee" means any paid employee of the
university. This policy also applies to
volunteers who teach, coach, evaluate, advise and supervise students at the
university.
b. "Student" means all individuals who
receive instruction under the auspices of George Mason University, including
but not limited to:
(1) persons who have registered for an educational
program at the University, whether or not the student is currently enrolled
(e.g., students who have enrolled at the University but have not yet registered
for classes, students who decide not to enroll for a period of time, and
doctoral degree candidates who are not registered);
(2) participants in internships, practicum experiences,
outreach, and summer programs and camps; and
(3) students who are also employees.
c. “Professional Power Relationship” means a
relationship between an
employee and a student in which the employee may have authority to exercise
decision-making authority regarding the student. Examples of a Professional Power Relationship
include, but are not limited to, relationships in which the employee:
(1) is in a position to make administrative or
educational decisions about a student;
(2) participates in an educational experience and has
the authority to assign grades;
(3) has any input into the evaluation of the
student’s academic performance;
(4) serves in matters of admission, or on scholarship
awards committees;
(5) has a managerial position over the student;
(6) has an official academic advising relationship to
the student, including as a thesis or dissertation advisor; or
(7) is a coach of the student.
d.
“Consensual Relationships” means, for purposes of this policy only,
relationships of a romantic, intimate, or sexual nature, where a Professional
Power Relationship exists.
IV. RESPONSIBILITES
All
academic and non-academic supervisors at all levels are responsible for
implementation of this policy.
V.
COMPLIANCE
a. An Employee entering into or engaging in a
Consensual Relationship, or a current or prospective employee offered a
position who will be in such a relationship should the position be accepted,
shall immediately:
(1)
report the
relationship to either the supervisor, Dean, Vice President/Provost, the hiring
official, the Office of Equity & Diversity Services, or Human Resources
& Payroll Office; and
(2)
cooperate
in actions taken to eliminate any actual or potential conflicts of interest and
to mitigate adverse effects on third parties.
b. The supervisor shall treat the information
confidentially and shall promptly:
(1)
consult
with the Office of Equity & Diversity Services; and
(2)
cooperate
with the Office of Equity & Diversity Services and Vice President/Provost,
eliminate conflicts of interest, and mitigate adverse effects on third
parties.
c. Possible actions a supervisor may take include,
but are not limited to:
(1)
transferring
one of the individuals to another position or class; or
(2)
transferring
supervisory, decision-making, evaluative, academic or advisory
responsibilities.
d. Violations of this policy may result in
discipline in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, Administrative Faculty
Handbook, and to the policies and procedures of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
EFFECTIVE
DATE
REVIEW
SIGNATURE